Thread 3
 
Copied from re:thinking Discussion Board
Topic: Age of the Earth
website: http://server5.ezboard.com/brethinkingsbulletinboard
 
This compilation provided by Hill Roberts.
No edits of any content were performed.
Some of the sequence of posts were rearranged for clarity.
Some posts to this discussion are contained in other threads within these archives.
[HRobLIB@aol.com]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomMoody
11/23/99 3:35:35 pm
Questions on Gen. 1 and age of earth
 
Brethren,
 
I have been reading with interest the discussion on the age of the earth. So that I might better understand the  point of view of those who believe that the earth is billions of years old, yet also believe in the Genesis account of creation, I have some questions.
 
These questions are principally for brother Roberts, but I would be happy for brother Matthews or brother Couchman to give their answers as well. I will assume, unless told otherwise, that they all are in essential agreement with one another.
 
1. When you say that the earth is 4 billion years old, are you saying merely that dirt and rocks are that old, or do you also believe that life as described in Gen. 1 is billions or at least millions of years old?
 
2. Brother Roberts wrote: “If you want to convert a scientist to some philosophical viewpoint, one must start with the data.”     Are scientists impressed with the view that life, but without evolution, is created over a period of six days interspersed through millions of years? (Note: I use the word “evolution” referring to its ordinary sense of biological, macro-evolution, which the majority of the scientific community believes. I also recognize that some believe in macro-evolution with God, rather than godless, purely naturalistic force, as the creative power behind it.)
 
3. Do you believe, as it says in Gen. 1:11-24 that God created the items in the consecutive order listed: vegetation (3rd day); sun, moon and stars (4th day); birds, sea creatures (5th day); and cattle, beasts, creeping things (6th day)? If so, do you believe that plants were living for millions of years before the sun was created? And that plants and the sun were millions of years before birds and sea creatures, and all of those millions of years before cattle and creeping things?
  4. Did vegetation exist for millions of years before birds, sea creatures and land animals, yet without evolution ?
 
5. If some forms of life lived for millions of years before other forms of life (with which, according to our observation today, there would be interdependence) yet without evolution, how were the earlier forms of life sustained?
 
Thank you for your time and consideration.
 
Tom Moody
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMathews
11/23/99 7:15:19 pm
Re: Questions on Gen. 1 and age of earth
 
Hello Brother Moody,
 
You have asked some very astute questions which I will attempt to answer. My answers merely represent my own beliefs and opinions, I am not speaking as a representative of anyone else involved in the present discussion. I do not present these answers as either correct or reliable, though they do accurately represent my present thought on this subject. Nor will I harbor any negative feelings toward you if you reject these answers, or offer alternative answers compatible with your own beliefs.
 
The First Question:
 
     1. When you say that the earth is 4 billion years old, are you saying merely that dirt and rocks      are that old, or      do you also believe that life as described in Gen. 1 is billions or at least millions of years old?
 
My answer: When saying that the Earth is 4 billion years old, I am certainly saying that dirt and rocks are that old. I also believe that life is as old as 4 billion years, though the living species present in the distant past are not described or mentioned in Genesis 1.
 
The Second Question:
 
     2. Brother Roberts wrote: “If you want to convert a scientist to some philosophical viewpoint,      one must      start with the data.”      Are scientists impressed with the view that life, but without evolution, is created over a period      of six days      interspersed through millions of years?
 
I do not believe that Brother Roberts' comment was meant to suggest that Christians must "impress" scientists. From my own standpoint as a Christian, I feel no need or responsibility to "impress" anyone.
 
I am not familiar with the concept that the creation days were literal, though interspersed within a time period of millions extending over millions of years. In my opinion, scientists would have nothing to do with that theory.
 
The Third Question:
 
     3. Do you believe, as it says in Gen. 1:11-24 that God created the items in the consecutive      order listed:      vegetation (3rd day); sun, moon and stars (4th day); birds, sea creatures (5th day); and      cattle, beasts,      creeping things (6th day)? If so, do you believe that plants were living for millions of years      before the sun      was created? And that plants and the sun were millions of years before birds and sea      creatures, and all of      those millions of years before cattle and creeping things?
 
I believe that Genesis 1 was never meant to convey the chronological order of events involved in the creation of the Universe.
 
Evidence clearly indicates that stars existed before the sun, the sun existed before the Earth, and that plants and animals existed long after the Earth's origin.
 
The Fourth Question:
 
     4. Did vegetation exist for millions of years before birds, sea creatures and land animals, yet      without      evolution ?
 
Vegetation did exist for millions of years prior to the origin of birds, sea creatures and land animals.
 
The Fifth Question:
 
     5. If some forms of life lived for millions of years before other forms of life (with which,      according to our      observation today, there would be interdependence) yet without evolution, how were the      earlier forms of life      sustained?
 
Interdependent relationships either indicate that these forms of life always existed concurrently or that there was a time when the species in question were not interpependent.
 
The above answers are presented for your consideration. If you have comments, questions or objections to these answers, feel free to express them. Important questions demand serious thought, discussion and the free expression of all viewpoints.
 
Hill Roberts and Tom Couchman may give answers that differ from my own. I would very much appreciate hearing their answers, as well.
 
Your brother in Christ,
 
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
11/24/99 5:59:50 pm
Re: Questions on Gen. 1 and age of earth
 
Tom,
Your questions reflect many of those I'm asked in our public Q&A sessions. I believe I've already provided
in prior posts most of the information you've requested. However, since you asked me to respond directly I'll do so, but I'm not committing to a new thread here. Hopefully, this will be adequate for your further meditations.
 
Four of your questions (1, 3, 4, 5) deal with interpreting Genesis. "1. When you say that the earth is 4 billion years old, are you saying merely that dirt and rocks are that old, or do you also believe that life as described in Gen. 1 is billions or at least millions of years old?" "3. Do you believe, as it says in Gen. 1:11-24 that God created the items in the consecutive order listed: vegetation (3rd day); sun, moon and stars (4th day); birds, sea creatures (5th day); and cattle, beasts, creeping things (6th day)? If so, do you believe that plants were living for millions of years before the sun was created? And that plants and the sun were millions of years before birds and sea creatures, and all of those millions of years before cattle and creeping things?" "4. Did vegetation exist for millions of years before birds, sea creatures and land animals, yet without evolution ?" "5. If some forms of life lived for millions of years before other forms of life (with which, according to our observation today, there would be interdependence) yet without evolution, how were the earlier forms of life sustained?"
 
David has given good short answers to these four questions; something I don't do well. My full approach to these questions concerning Genesis is presented in the materials I referenced in my initial post to this discussion board, and again in my last post to Doy. I'm presuming from your questions you have not yet reviewed that off-board material. It is too long to post here without abusing Allan's hospitality. Copying from my last post to Doy: "… I pointed to that [Genesis] material on my website in my first post. Go to my http://LordiBelieve.org website, to the Materials page, take the AgeEvidences link to my book. You will find it in the Appendix of the book. (Of over 700 that have visited this discussion board, much less than 50 have actually accessed that material introduced in my first post. Of those, nearly all skipped the discussion of the physical evidence in the book, and read only the appendix. The appendix only has any force if one is willing to read the rest of the book first. …) I have gone to a very great deal of effort to incorporate Genesis into an understanding of a total interpretation of origins. I'm not totally happy with it, but a lot happier than with any other option I know of. It is not a final word, but at least an attempt."
 
In a different direction, you asked in your second question: " "If you want to convert a scientist to some philosophical viewpoint, one must start with the data." Are scientists impressed with the view that life, but without evolution, is created over a period of six days interspersed through millions of years?"
 
My experience is that many of my colleagues do not find the idea of creation and Creator incredible at all, especially among the international scene. Astronomers, for example, are quite comfortable speaking of creation and do so frequently. Paleontologists are quite comfortable speaking of "sudden beginnings" and seek further explanations, especially for the inscrutable origin of life and the many "punctuations" in the fossil record. Microbiologists openly speak of intelligent design at the sub-cellular level. (I find that physical scientists tend to be more amenable to Creator explanations, than are life scientists and sociologists.) What they all have a problem with is a young earth. Once they realize I'm not coming from that view, many are very relieved to learn that Genesis presents a simple yet reliable account that squares with what they've discovered about natural history. Are they impressed with it? Either they are impressed with God's creation and seek Him through His Word, or they rebel against God's authority in any realm. Same as for non-scientists, and in about the same proportion. It is a fertile field, ripe for harvest. God's revelation is what's impressive.
 
In these discussions there are two different, but related, primary issues that are being intermingled. It is important to realize these are different issues. 1) What is the age of creation? (primarily a science question) 2) What does Genesis mean? (primarily a religious question) Believers might agree on a position for (1) yet still have radically different approaches for answering (2). As for myself, I am fairly strongly convicted of an answer to the first issue: it is probably ancient. However, I reserve the right to be wrong in this. The challenge to the my YEC friends is, what if we're right? As to the second issue, there are many exegetical possibilities that seem meritorious within my presupposition of inspired authorship for Genesis. I am much less strongly convicted of any particular approach - within the bounds of inspiration - to this second issue. My referenced harmonization approach is only one possibility of many.
 
Finally, it should be noted that it is not wise to assume that those who accept an ancient creation, likewise accept a singular interpretation of Genesis. Almost certainly the OECs who post to or follow this discussion board do not all have the same views of Genesis.
 
Sincerely,
Hill
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomMoody
11/25/99 10:25:02 am
Re: Questions on Gen. 1 and age of earth
 
Brother Matthews,
 
    Thank you for your very quick and straightforward response to my questions. I also appreciate the tone with which you have expressed yourself in all of your posts.
 
    Let me begin with a couple of clarifications on my question two:
 
    “Brother Roberts wrote: ‘If you want to convert a scientist to some philosophical viewpoint, one must start with the data.’     “Are scientists impressed with the view that life, but without evolution, is created over a period of six days interspersed through millions of years?”
 
    I appreciate the fact that you commented on the question, though you could have passed over it since it was based on a quotation from Hill Roberts.     You said that you did not believe that brother Roberts meant to suggest that we must “impress” scientists, nor do you feel the need to “impress” anyone. You also said that you are not familiar with such a view of creation as described in the question, and that you do not believe scientists would have anything to do with that theory.
 
    My response:     1. By “impress”, I did not mean in any sense of self-glorification - as in presenting a theory which would cause scientists to be “impressed with me”. What I really meant was whether such a theory would be attractive to scientists. I was referring to the conviction which I gather that brother Hill has, that we must be prepared to present and defend the existence, power and divineness of God on the basis of physical evidence  in order to reach scientists, and that any suggestion of a young earth will greatly hinder or defeat that purpose, as they would find such a view so disagreeable.     My question was whether unbelieving scientists would find “the view that life, but without evolution, is created over a period of six days interspersed through millions of years” any more appealing than they would the view of a recent creation over six ordinary days.     I share your opinion, that “scientists would have nothing to do with that theory.” The exception would be in the case of a scientist who also believes in an infallible revelation, such as the Bible, and he believes that such a view is taught in that revelation.
 
    2. The concept of six days interspersed through millions of years came from Allan Turner’s characterization of brother Roberts’ view. I believe it is in his first response to your “Substantial Evidence of  the Earth’s History & Age”:
 
    “Roberts, who agrees with Matthews on the billions of years, believes the six days of Creation were consecutive days, more or less equivalent to our current solar days, but with long periods of time between them.”
 
    Maybe brother Turner is incorrect on brother Roberts’ view. I have not read from brother Robert’s what he believes except for what he has written on this board, so I don’t know. But this explains the thinking behind the question.
 
The Other Questions:
 
    You said that life is as old as 4 billion years old, “though the living species present in the distant past are not described or mentioned in Genesis 1.” This brings a couple of questions to mind:
 
    1. How old are the living species described in Genesis 1?
 
    2. Does the Bible make any reference to the living things in the distant past? What was their origin? Was         there a previous creation? A “beginning” prior to the “beginning” of Genesis creation?
 
    In answer to my third question, “Do you believe, as it says in Gen. 1:11-24 that God created the items in the consecutive order listed...” Your answer was that Genesis 1 was never meant to convey the chronological order of events involved in the creation of the Universe. As an example you said that the sun existed before the earth.     Questions:     1. Are there other examples of events listed in Gen. 1 which are out of chronological order?     2. If Gen. 1 was never meant to convey the chronological order of events in creation, why does it seem to present a chronology?
 
    You gave very direct answers to my questions concerning various forms of life existing for millions of years prior to other forms of life. My questions 2, 4 & 5, also added the phrase “without evolution”. This is because, I gather that brother Hill wants us to understand that he is not a theistic evolutionist. Brother Matthews, do you repudiate theistic evolution?
 
    One more item, concerning human life:     1. How old is human life?     2. Does Gen. 1-2 convey the actual, historical account of the creation of Adam and Eve?
 
    I do appreciate the directness and brevity of your answers to my first post. I realize that in this response, I have raised several questions which could easily take you much time and space to address. If  you wish, just pick out a couple of the topics you feel are most important to comment on. If you do not get to something for which I would like to have your answer, I will just bring it up again. Speaking for myself, I could easily become enslaved to my keyboard, and the study of one subject - and I don’t intend for that to happen! I am  therefore, sympathetic to others who have other things to do besides responding to me.
 
Brotherly,
Tom Moody
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMathews
11/26/99 10:31:24 am
Re: Questions on Gen. 1 and age of earth
 
Dear Brother Moody,
 
Thanks for clarifying question number two. I do not have an opinion about the ability of any theory of creation to impress scientists. Scientists are too diverse in their beliefs and philosophies to predict how they would react. Without a doubt, some scientists would accept the concept of six literal days of creation interspersed within millions of years of time.
 
Now I am not so concerned about what opinions a scientist, any scientist, has about creation or how to incorporate the creation account within the context of the known history of the Earth and Universe. Scientists are not responsible for creating theories of creation or coordinating the creation account with the history of the Universe. Scientists who are compelled by their religious beliefs to speculate about these matters are no more qualified or reliable as anyone else -- scientists can misunderstand the Bible as easily as anyone else may misunderstand the Bible.
 
I can only comment with authority about my own view, the evidences and arguments which lead me to reach my present conclusion. A six or ten thousand year history of the Earth is an indefensible doctrine, as both of these ages fall firmly within the historic period of human history. A twelve or twenty thousand year history of the Earth is an indefensible doctrine, as both of these ages fall firmly within the prehistoric period of human history as revealed and known from archaeology. What is remarkable (or troublesome) is that both the world and Universe of twenty thousand years ago was virtually identical to the world today, but that both of Earth and the Universe display evidence of activity, change and modification which demands millions and billions of years.
 
Simply stated, the concept of a six literal day creation occurring any time within the last 100,000 years does not coincide with the evidence found under our feet and above our head, at all scales of size and complexity. The young earth creation position is untenable and indefensible from any scientific perspective, regardless of the claims of certain organizations which identify themselves as "scientific creationists." All present theories of young earth creationism contradict (and perhaps even reject) science and lead inevitably to a Universe which is incomprehensible.
 
Now I will attempt to answer the questions in your post:
 
     1. How old are the living species described in Genesis 1?
 
The species mentioned in Genesis 1 are: Grass, seed bearing Herbs, Fruit trees, Sea Creatures, Winged Birds, Cattle, and Mankind.
 
Geological evidence indicates that all of these species originated within the last six hundred million years, with mankind the most recent creation of these.
 
     2. Does the Bible make any reference to the living things in the distant past? What was their      origin? Was      there a previous creation? A “beginning” prior to the “beginning” of Genesis creation?
 
The Bible's account of creation simply does not mention all forms of life. I have no doubt that God is the Creator, even of those creatures that the Bible does not mention.
 
I do not know what anyone would mean when speaking of a "previous creation" or of a "beginning prior to the 'beginning' of Genesis creation." These concepts may only have meaning to those who take a strictly literal interpretation of the creation account.
 
I will only say that there was a beginning, and that God did create. God was active throughout all of the history of the Universe and the Earth, including all of the time preceding the creation of humankind.
 
You then asked the following questions about chronology:
 
     1. Are there other examples of events listed in Gen. 1 which are out of chronological order?
 
A Biblical example of variation in chronology is found the temptation of Jesus.
 
In Matthew's gospel, Satan's three temptations are presented in this manner:
 
1. Command stones to become bread (4:3) 2. Throw Yourself from pinnacle of the Temple (4:6) 3. Fall down and worship me for kindgoms of the world (4:9)
 
In Luke's gospel, Satan's temptations are presented in this order:
 
1. Command stones to become bread (4:3) 2. Worship me for the kindgoms of the world (4:6) 3. Throw yourself from the pinnacle of the Temple (4:9)
 
Evidently, Matthew and Luke present a different chronology of the temptations. The second and third temptations are transposed.
 
     2. If Gen. 1 was never meant to convey the chronological order of events in creation, why      does it seem to      present a chronology?
 
The creation account is organized in a manner which suggest a chronology. The modern mind, grounded in a concept of time governed by uniform and universal time measurements, seeks to interpret the creation account as a history of events occurring in chronology succession.
 
Ancient people had no uniform or consistent chronology, their only clock was the sun and they had no numbered year on their calendar. Chronology was secondary to other considerations, such as the relative importance of the events mentioned.
 
In addition, Christians ought to keep in mind that time itself is not an absolute. Within the Universe, Einstein has demonstrated that time is relative. Outside the confines of the Earth and Solar System, "day" and "year" are meaningless. God is not bound by the human experience of time, "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8)
 
Your next question was whether or not I repudiated theistic evolution. I have rejected evolution, and explained the reasons why, in my essay titled "Blind Faith in a Blind Watchmaker." You will find that essay on my home page
 (http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1).
 
Your final two questions were regarding Adam and Eve:
 
     1. How old is human life?
 
The historic period of humanity is less than ten thousand years old, while the prehistoric period of humanity is perhaps between 50,000 and 250,000 years old.
 
     2. Does Gen. 1-2 convey the actual, historical account of the creation of Adam and Eve?
 
I believe that Genesis 1-2 convey the actual, historical account of the creation of Adam and Eve.
 
These answers represent my present conclusions, and they are subject to revision and modification. I do not demand that everyone agree with these answers, nor would reject anyone whose answers differed from mine. I seek the truth and represent myself honestly, without fear of rebuke or desire for praise.
 
Thanks,
David Mathews
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomMoody
11/26/99 11:59:07 am
Re: Questions on Gen. 1 and age of earth
 
Brother Hill,
 
    Thank you for your response. You need not be concerned with “committing to a new thread”, nor even answering me in anyway, for that matter. You are correct that I have not yet read your book. I intend to download, print and read it, but it will take some time. In the mean time, as I stated in my first post, I am merely trying to be sure I understand some positions. That was the reason for my questions.
 
    When you reproduced my questions, just a “yes” or “no” along with, particularly 1, 3, and 4 would have been very helpful. I realize that 2 and 5 might have required a little explanation. I was not looking for all the detailed evidence, just an indication of what your point of view is. This is what David Matthews did, and I think I have a fairly good grasp of the positions from which he is coming on those topics. The only thing I was not sure of from his answers is whether he believes that God operated through evolution.
 
    I went back and read your previous posts and did not find information which, to me, seemed to answer the specific questions I asked. It’s very possible that I missed something.
 
    Your 11/9 post on “Data and Philosophy” suggests that animals had been dying long before any man did.
 
However, I am not sure that it would be fair for me to infer from that that you believe that life as described  in Gen. 1 is billions or at least millions of years old, or that vegetation existed millions of years before birds, sea creatures, etc. (My questions 1, 3, 4, 5.)
 
    In your 11/4 post on “Data and Philosophy” you speak of an interpretation of Gen. 1 which preserves the
 
literal “days”, while allowing the possibility of any amount of time, young or old. I am sure in your book you explain that in detail, and I hope to read your book. However, I thought it would be helpful to be sure I understood your view up front.
      Realizing it is a simplified summary, does my question 2 give a fair representation of your understanding (that life, but without evolution, is created over a period of six days interspersed through millions of years)?
 
 
    And, do you believe that God created the items listed in Gen. 1:11-24, in the consecutive order listed? Brother Matthews made it clear that he does not believe this. He stated that he does not believe that Genesis1 was meant to convey the chronological order of events in creation. His answer was forthright and I
can understand it.
 
    On my question 2: “Brother Roberts wrote: ‘If you want to convert a scientist to some philosophical viewpoint, one must start with the data.’     “Are scientists impressed with the view that life, but without evolution, is created over a period of six days interspersed through millions of years?”
 
    I probably should not have used the word “impressed”. What I meant, as I explained to brother Matthews, was whether scientists found such a theory any more appealing (based on their interpretation of the physical data) than they do the concept of a relatively recent creation of six ordinary days.
      You stated: “My experience is that many of my colleagues do not find the idea of creation and Creator incredible at all...”.
 
    I am glad that this is your finding, and frankly, it does not surprise me. I have talked to scientists who, though agnostic, recognize the distinct possibility of a Creator. I have also talked to scientists who insist that the glory of God is manifested through the evolutionary process. Your description of the tendencies of those in different scientific fields was also interesting and helpful.
 
    However, what I wanted to know was whether scientists, particularly those coming from a skeptical and naturalistic presupposition, and who are alienated by the young earth concept, are impressed (find appealing) the concept of creation, without evolution, over six days interspersed through millions of years?
 
    Brother Matthews’ answer to that question was:     “I am not familiar with the concept that the creation days were literal, though interspersed within a time  period of millions extending over millions of years. In my opinion, scientists would have nothing to do with that theory.”     I can clearly understand brother Matthews’ position from his answer.
 
    You noted that it is not wise to assume that those who accept an ancient creation agree on an interpretation of Genesis, adding that “Almost certainly the OECs who post to or follow this discussion board do not all have the same views of Genesis.” That is a reasonable and fair point. However, you also said in reference to my questions 1, 3, 4, 5, which “deal with interpreting Genesis”, that “David has given good short answers to these four questions.”
 
    Just for clarification, does this mean that you agree with brother Matthews’ answers to those four questions?
 
    Thank you for your consideration.
 
Brotherly, Tom Moody

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Thread 3

back to LIB Discussion Archive Page